Re:Man shot and killed by federal agents in south Minneapoli...
by zahlman on Sunday January 25, 2026 @01:34PM
(#46756738)
> An ad hominem argument is an argument constructed around characteristics of a person outside the bounds of what is being discussed.
"Ad hominem attack" is commonly used to just mean saying something insulting or uncharitable.
> Inferring someone's opinion
You accused that dekhn would treat people unfairly, based on no apparent evidence:
> We both know you wouldn't grant the same grace and charity to the intentions of the protestors.
This is an accusation that the other person is knowingly biased. And it is not, in fact, an inference of "opinion".
> Say I'm wrong and cite why.
There are reasons to object to a comment on the Internet other than being "wrong". Which is what's happening here.
> Don't call me "disgraceful". Why? Because THAT is an ad hominem attack.
You were not called "disgraceful". Your commentary was called disgraceful.
> In fact the clear offense being taken makes it pretty clear to me that my point landed closer than maybe you're prepared to admit.
The person taking offense, the person your comment referred to, and I (the person you originally replied to ITT) are three separate people.
> You cleverly skipped the point where I even admitted I might be wrong!
The only thing in your comment that could be interpreted as such as "I don't know if this is your intent or not"; but that does not refer to the commentary being called out here as an ad hominem attack.
"Ad hominem attack" is commonly used to just mean saying something insulting or uncharitable.
> Inferring someone's opinion
You accused that dekhn would treat people unfairly, based on no apparent evidence:
> We both know you wouldn't grant the same grace and charity to the intentions of the protestors.
This is an accusation that the other person is knowingly biased. And it is not, in fact, an inference of "opinion".
> Say I'm wrong and cite why.
There are reasons to object to a comment on the Internet other than being "wrong". Which is what's happening here.
> Don't call me "disgraceful". Why? Because THAT is an ad hominem attack.
You were not called "disgraceful". Your commentary was called disgraceful.
> In fact the clear offense being taken makes it pretty clear to me that my point landed closer than maybe you're prepared to admit.
The person taking offense, the person your comment referred to, and I (the person you originally replied to ITT) are three separate people.
> You cleverly skipped the point where I even admitted I might be wrong!
The only thing in your comment that could be interpreted as such as "I don't know if this is your intent or not"; but that does not refer to the commentary being called out here as an ad hominem attack.